E 
£ 

J67 


SPEECH 
Bancroft  Librarv 

S 


MR,  R.ICOOMBS,  OF  GEORGIA, 

(10 

IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  FEBRUARY  27,  1850,  IN  COMMITTEE  OF  THE 
WHOLE  ON  THE  STA'PE  OF  THE  UNION,  ON  THE  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE  COMMU 
NICATING  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Mr.  TOOMBS  said: 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN  :  There  is  a  general  discontent 
among-  the  people  of  fifteen  States  of  the  Union 
against  this  Government.  Popular  discontents  are 
rarely  ill-founded.  It  is  almost  impossible  in  a 
free,  popular  government,  for  any  considerable 
portion  of  the  people  to  become  alienated  from  the 
government  of  their  own  free  choice  without  a  sub 
stantial  reason.  I  propose,  as  a  Representative  of 
a  portion  of  the  people  who  participate  largely  in 
this  discontent,  to  inquire  into  its  cause,  and  if  it 
be  well-founded,  to  ask  you  to  remove  it.  It  is 
based  upon  a  well-founded  apprehension  of  a  fixed 
purpose  on  the  part  of  the  non-slaveholding  States 
of  the  Union  to  destroy  their  political  rights  ;  to 
put  their  institutions  under  the  ban  of  the  empire, 
by  excluding  them  from  an  equal  participation  in 
the  common  benefits  of  the  Republic,  and  thereby 
to  bring  the  powers  of  their  own  Government  in 
direct  hostility  to  fifteen  hundred  millions  of  their 
property.  This  brief  statement  suggests  the  pro 
priety  of  the  investigation  upon  which  I  now  pro 
pose  to  enter:  What  is  the  true  relation  of  this 
Government  to  property  in  slaves?  We  arc  now, 
sir,  in  a  transition  state;  heretofore  the  distribu 
tion  of  political  power,  under  our  system,  h~s  made 
sectional  aggression  impossible.  I  think  it  would 
have  been  wi?e  to  have  secured  permanency  to  such 
distribution  by  the  fundamental  law.  It  was  not 
done. 

The  course  of  events,  the  increase  of  population 
in  the  northern  portion  of  the  republic,  and  the  ad 
dition  of  New  States,  are  about  to  give,  if  they  have 
not  already  given,  the  non-slaveholding  States  a 
majority  in  both  branches  of  Congress,  arid  they 
have  a  large  and  increasing  majority  of  the  popula 
tion  of  the  Union.  These  causes  have  brought  us 
to  the  point  where  we  are  to  test  the  sufficiency  of 
written  constitutions  to  protect  the  rights  of  a  mi 
nority  against  a  majority  of  the  people.  Upon  the 
determination  of  this  question  will  depend,  and 
ought  to  depend,  the  permanency  of  the  Govern 
ment.  The  union  of  these  States  had  its  birth  in 
the  weakness  of  its  separate  members:  without  that 
single  controlling  element,  its  early  history  amply 
demonstrates  that  its  creation,  in  its  present  form, 
would  have  been  an  impossibility.  It  contained 
uncongenial  elements,  and  perhaps  discordant  in 
terests.  It  left  local,  yet  great  and  important 
interests,  of  what  was  even  then  seen  would  be  nu 
merically  the  weaker  section  of  the  confederacy, 

GIDEON  &  Co.,  Printers. 

e 

471 


without  any  security  against  the  stronger,  except 
from  parchment  guarantees.  Our  fathers  did  not 
imitate  the  wisdom  of  the  great  Grecian  ambassa 
dor,  who  declared,  when  entering  into  a  treaty 
with  the  adversaries  of  his  country:  I  will  accept 
no  other  security  but  this — that  you  shall  not  have 
the  power  to  injure  my  country,  if  you  wish  to  do 
it.  Our  security,  under  the  Constitution,  is  based 
solely  upon  good  faith.  There  is  nothing  in  ita 
structure  which  makes  aggression  permanently 
impossible.  It  requires  neither  skill,  nor  genius, 
nor  courage,  to  perpetrate  it;  it  requires  only  bad 
faith.  I  have  studied  the  histories  of  nations  and 
the  characteristics  of  mankind  to  but  little  purpose 
if  that  quality  shall  be  found  wanting  in  the  future 
administration  of  our  affairs.  Our  present  Consti 
tution  was  not  baptized  in  the  blood  of  the  revolu 
tion. 

The  old  confederation,  which  was  found  strong 
enough,  under  a  sense  of  common  danger,  to  carry 
us  triumphantly  through  the  war  of  the  revolution, 
upon  the  return  of  peace,  was  supposed  to  be  insuf 
ficient  for  the  wants  of  the  country.  Delegates  met 
in  convention  at  Philadelphia  to  amend  it ;  the 
present  Constitution  was  the  result  of  their  tabors. 
The  journals  and  debates  of  that  convention  attest 
the  fact,  that  the  delegates  from  th*e  slaveholding' 
States  saw  the  danger  of  submitting  their  rights  to 
property  in  slaves  to  the  hostile  legislation  of  the 
proposed  new  government.  They  then  foresaw 
that  they  would  be  in  a  minority ;  a  strong  hostili 
ty  to  that  interest  was  openly  manifested  in  the 
convention  ;  they  were  wise  enough  not  to  expect 
an  abatement  of  that  sentiment,  and  therefore  they 
demanded  special  guarantees  for  its  protection. 
The  inflexible  pertinacity  with  which  some  of  these 
guarantees  were  insisted  upon,  on  more  than  one 
occasion  during  the  deliberations  of  that  assembly, 
threatened  the  loss  of  the  whole  plan  of  Union. 
They  were  conceded,  because  the  Union  could  not 
have  been  formed  without  their  concession.  These 
special  guarantees  were — 

1st.  An  exception  of  the  African  slave  trade  from 
the  general  power  of  Congress  over  commerce  for 
twenty  years. 

2d.  Representation  for  slaves  in  this  branch  of 
Congress. 

3d.  The  right  to  demand  the  delivery  up  of  fugi 
tives  from  labor  escaping  to  the  non-slaveholding 
confederates. 


4th.  The  obligation  of  the  General  Government 
to  suppress  insurrections. 

These  special  securities,  tog-ether  with  the  reser 
vation  "to  the  States  respectively,  or  to  the  peo 
ple,"  of  the  "  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United 
States  by  the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to 
the  States,"  were  supposed  by  those  who  granted 
them  and  those  who  accepted  them  to  be  amply 
sufficient  to  protect  property  in  slaves  from  any 
hostile  action  of  this  Government.  In  this  sense 
was  the  Constitution  received  and  accepted  by  the 
people  of  the  United  States.  The  only  defect  in 
these  guarantees  results  from  the  fact  that  the  ex 
ecution  and  faithful  observance  of  them  depend 
upon  the  good  faith  of  the  Government;  in  them 
selves  honestly  adhered  to,  they  are  full,  ample, 
and  sufficient. 

The  history  of  some  of  them  is  curious  and 
instructing1.  At  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the 
Constitution,  Virginia  and  Maryland  had  prohib 
ited  the  African  slave  trade,  North  Carolina  had 
laws  trammeling  and  restraining  it,  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia  insisted  upon  further  importations. 
These  two  States  bargained  with  New  England, 
and  a  part  of  the  consideration  was,  that  New 
England  was  to  vote  for  the  continuance  of  the 
African  slave  trade  for  twenty  years,  arid  Georgia 
and  South  Carolina  were  to  vote  to  place  the  gen 
eral  commerce  of  the  country  under  the  control  of 
a  majority  of  Congress,  instead  of  two-thirds, 
which  haci  been  passed  by  the  Convention.  The 
understanding  was  fairly  carried  out  on  both  sides, 
and  thus  the  African  slave  trade  was  made  lawful 
commerce  under  the  flag  of  the  Union  by  the  votes 
of  New  England  against  the  votes  of  slaveholding 
Virginia  and  Maryland.  The  North  has  en 
joyed  in  security  her  part  of  the  bargain,  and  she 
was  none  the  loser  by  our  part  of  the  contract,  as 
she  did  the  carrying,  and  received  the  profits  of 
the  speculation  in  slaves.  Yet,  in  the  face  of  these 
facts,  and  in  defiance  of  these  provisions  of  the 
Constitution,  we  are  told  on  this  floor,  by  New 
England  Representatives,  that  slave  property  is 
out  of  the  protection  of  the  Government.  Thou 
sands  of  these  slaves  thus  introduced  as  lawful 
commerce  are  still  held  by  the  people  of  the  South; 
other  thousands,  which  were  sold  for  taxes  and 
other  debts  due  this  Government,  are  thus  held; 
the  money  is,  or  may  be  in  your  treasury,  liable 
to  be  paid  out  for  your  per-diem  pay.  Your  Gov 
ernment  has  direct  or  imperfect  liens  upon  other 
thousands  in  the  shape  of  official  or  other  bonds. 
We  have  the  right  to  call  on  you  to  give  your 
blood  to  maintain  these  thousands  and  all  the  rest 
of  the  slaves  of  the  South  in  bondage.  It  is  "so 
nominated  in  the  bond."  Yet  with  these  obliga 
tions  resting  upon  you,  we  are  told  by  you  that 
slave  property  is  out  of  the  protection  of  the  Gov 
ernment.  Gentlemen,  deceive  not  yourselves,  you 
cannot  deceive  others.  This  is  a  pro-slavery  gov 
ernment.  Slavery  is  stamped  upon  its  heart — the 
Constitution.  You  must  tear  that  out  of  the  body 
politic  before  you  can  commence  the  work  of  its 
eradication. 

I  have  heard  in  this  hall,  within  a  few  days  past, 
fierce  and  bitter  denunciations  from  northern  lips, 
of  Abolitionists — those  of  the  Garrison  school,  who 
sometimes  chance  to  meet  in  Faneuil  Hall.  In  my 
.judgment,  their  line  of  policy  is  the  fairest,  most 
just,  most  honest  and  defensible  of  all  the  enemies 
of  our  institutions.  And  such  will  be  the  judg 
ment  of  impartial  history.  "They  shun  no  ques 
tion,  they  wear  no  mask."  They  admit  some,  at 
least,  of  the  constitutional  obligations  to  protect 
slavery.  They  hold  these  obligations  inconsistent 


with  good  conscience,  and  they  therefore  denounce 
the  Constitution  as  "a  covenant  with  Death  and  a 
league  with  Hell,"  and  struggle  earnestly  for  its 
overthrow.  If  their  conduct  is  devoid  of  every 
other  virtue,  and  every  other  claim  to  our  respect, 
it  is  at  least  consistent.  They  do  not  seek,  as  many 
members  do  here,  to  get  the  benefits,  and^shun  the 
burdens  of  the  bargain. 

Notwithstanding  the  constitutional  safeguards 
which  I  have  enumeA;ed,  the  enemies  of  slavery 
here  have  attemptedH&nd  are  now  attempting,  to 
get,  by  implication,  that  power  to  war  upon  it 
which  was  so  studiously  withheld.  No  man  pre 
tends  that  there  is  any  express  power  (except  that 
to  inhibit  the  African  slave  trade  after  1803)  grant 
ed  in  the  Constitution  to  limit,  restrain,  discourage, 
or  otherwise  impair  property  in  slaves.  But  they 
seek  to  effect  these  objects  by  implication,  under 
the  claim  of  power  to  govern  the  Territories  belong 
ing  to  the  United  States.  This  power  to  govern 
the  Territories  is  itself  but  a  doubtful  implication. 
It  is  not  founded  upon  express  grant.  That  clause 
of  the  Constitution  which  authorizes  Congress  "  to 
'  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regu- 
«  lations  respecting  the  territory  or  other  property 
'  belonging  to  the  United  States"  has  been  some 
times  relied  upon  to  warrant  legislation  over  the 
Territories.  But  its  terms  confine  it  so  clearly  to 
territory  as  land,  as  property,  that  the  pretension 
is  now  generally  abandoned  as  untenable,  the  ad 
vocates  of  the  power  most  usually  claim  it  as  result 
ing  from  the  power  to  acquire  territory  by  treaty. 

It  being  unimportant  to  my  argument  from 
whence  the  power  to  legislate  over  the  Territories 
is  derived,  I  shall  not  now  discuss  it.  No  matter 
where  you  place  it,  the  power  to  legislate  against 
slavery  is  not  a  legitimate  incident  to  it,  and  can 
not  by  any  just  rule  of  constitutional  construction 
be  derived  from  it.  The  object,  the  end,  is  no 
where  sanctioned  by  the  Constitution,  therefore  the 
means  cannot  be  implied.  The  argument  of  the 
North,  stated  briefly,  is  this :  That  the  object  of  the 
power  to  legislate  over  the  Territories  is  to  give 
them  good  government,  and  that  the  exclusion  of 
slavery  is  a  necessary  and  proper  means  to  secure 
that  ooject.  The  conclusion  is  not  warranted  by 
the  premises,  even  considering  it  as  a  general  pro 
position,  without  reference  to  our  peculiar  form  of 
government;  taken  in  that  connexion  it  is  not  only 
illogical,  but  atrocious.  It  is  assuming  that  there 
was  an  implied  power  given  to  the  head  of  our  po 
litical  system  to  war  against  its  members— a  power 
to  stamp  with  reprobation  the  institutions  of  fifteen 
States  of  the  Republic,  to  declare  their  institutions 
inconsistent  with  good  government,  and  to  forbid 
their  adoption,  even  if  desired  by  the  people,  by 
the  inhabitants  of  the  common  domain  of  all  the 
States.  There  lies  the  real  question  between  us. 
This  pretension  is  not  only  not  warranted  by  the 
Constitution,  but  brings  you  in  direct  collision  with 
the  fundamental  principles  of  this  Government  and 
of  all  good  government.  This  Government  was 
established  for  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  per 
sons  and  the  rights  of  property  of  the  political  com 
munities  which  adopted  it.  These  are  the  primary 
objects  of  all  good  government.  The  protection  of 
property  is  the  corner-stone  of  industry,  of  national 
progress,  of  civilization.  No  government  can  stand 
in  America,  or  ought  to  stand  any  where,  which 
brings  its  powers  in  hostility  to  the  property  of  the 
people.  These  principles  are  the  foundation  of  the 
positions  which  I  assumed  at  the  opening  of  this 
Congress.  They  elicited  much  animadversion 
from  the  press  of  the  North,  and  some  from  people 
at  the  South  who  are  among  us,  but  not  of  us.  I 


desire  here,  again,  to  reaffirm  them.  I  shall  stand 
by  them;  if  their  maintenance  by  the  South  costs 
the  Union,  it  is  your  fault,  not  ours.  Our  lives, 
our  property,  our  constitutional  privileges  are  all 
really  involved  in  the  issue.  Your  position  offers 
us  the  fate  of  Hayti,  or,  at  best,  of  Jamaica,  or  re 
sistance  to  lawless  rule.  I  trust  there  is  nothing  in 
our  past  history  which  ought  to  induce  you  to 
doubt  which  alternative  we»  shall  accept.  Though 
the  Union  may  perish,  thou%h  slavery  may  perish, 
I  warn  my  countrymen  never  to  surrender  their 
right  to  an  equal  participation  in  the  common  pro 
perty  of  the  republic,  nor  their  right  to  full  and 
ample  protection  of  their  property  from  their  own 
government.  The  day  they  do  this  deed  "their 
fall  will  be  like  that  of  Lucifer,  never  to  rise 
again." 

This  general  duty  of  Government  to  protect  the 
property  of  the  people  is  so  obviously  just  that  it  is 
usually  admitted,  with  the  qualification  of  except 
ing  slave  property.  This  very  exception  is  but  as 
serting  in  a  more  odious  form  hostility  to  our  rig-hts. 
The  principle  upon  which  the  exception  is  pre 
tended  to  be  based  is,  that  slavery  is  a  peculiar  in 
stitution  and  is  against  the  common  law  of  man 
kind.  If  slavery  is  a  peculiar  institution,  I  have  to 
reply,  then  our  Government  is  a  peculiar  govern 
ment,  and  our  Constitution  is  a  peculiar  constitu 
tion,  fur  I  have  already  shown  that  both  the  Gov 
ernment  and  the  Constitution  are  impregnated 
with  the  peculiarity.  "The  common  law  of  man 
kind"  is  at  best  but  an  uncertain  term.  It  wants 
many  of  the  essential  ingredients  of  good  law.  It 
is  difficult  of  ascertainment,  and  more  difficult  to 
enforce.  I  take  its  best  exponent  to  be  the  prac 
tice  of  mankind.  Tested  by  this  rule  the  position 
of  our  opponents  is  untenable.  There  is  no  period 
in  the  history  of  the  human  race  in  which  slavery 
has  not  existed  in  a  great  portion  of  the  earth.  It 
was  the  universal  practice  of  mankind  from  the 
days  of  Abraham  until  the  formation  of  our  Con 
stitution.  It  was  expressly  authorized  and  sanc 
tioned  by  the  successor  of  St.  Peter  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  and  was  at  that  time  the  general  law  of 
Christendom.  At  the  formation  of  our  Constitution 
property  in  slaves  was  recognised  and  protected  in 
some  form  by  every  civilized  government  in  the 
world.  If  our  constitutional  rights  to  the  protection 
of  our  slave  property  is  to  be  subjected  to  this  new 
test,  this  new  invention  of  our  opponents,  "the 
common  law  of  mankind,"  we  claim  to  stand  upon 
the  law  as  it  stood  when  the  compact  was  made. 
It  is  the  legal  and  just  rule  of  construing  private 
contracts:  it  is  equally  just  when  applied  to  the  ex 
position  of  public  compacts.  It  is  the  only  mode  of 
arriving  at  the  true  sense  and  meaning  of  the  par 
ties  to  the  compact  in  relation  to  the  test  applied. 
At  that  day  slavery  was  lawful  in  every  country 
in  the  world  where  it  was  not  prohibited  by  law. 
The  dictum  of  Lord  Mansfield  to  the  contrary  in 
Somersett's  case,  in  1772,  was  outside  of  the  case 
before  him,  against  the  express  decision  of  Lord 
Hardwicke  and  other  eminent  English  jurists  on 
the  precise  point,  and  was  disavowed  fifty  years 
afterwards  in  a  judicial  decision  by  Lord  Stowell, 
one  of  the  most  able,  learned,  and  accomplished  of 
England's  judges.  That  such  was  the  common 
law  of  these  colonies  Lord  Mansfield  himself,  in  the 
case  referred  to,  expressly  affirmed;  and  that  such 
was  the  understanding  of  the  law  by  the  States 
who  formed  our  Constitution  is  conclusively  proved 
by  the  fact,  that  emancipation,  where  it  has  taken 
place,  has  been  effected  in  every  instance  but  one 
by  express  prohibition;  and  it  is  further  shown  by 
the  uniform  protection  which  this  Government, 


from  its  foundation,  has  given  to  property  in  slaves 
without  inquiry  into  its  origin.  This  Government 
has  no  power  to  declare  what  shall  or  what  shall 
not  be  property,  or  to  regulate  the  manner  or  places 
of  its  enjoyment,  except  in  the  cases  of  patent  rights 
and  copyrights.  This  power  belongs  to  the  State 
governments  to  the  extent  that  it  exists  anywhere. 
Whatever  any  of  the  States  recognise  as  property, 
it  is  the  duty  of  this  Government  to  protect.  When 
it  places  itself  in  hostility  to  property  thus  se 
cured,  it  becomes  an  enemy  to  the  people,  and 
ought  to  be  corrected  or  subverted.  This  is  a 
question  which  affects  the  rights  of  all  the  States. 

This  is  the  only  rule  which  can  preserve  the  har 
mony  of  the  Union,  and  enable  the  General  Gov 
ernment  to  perform  impartially  its  duties  to  States 
having  different  interests  and  institutions.  .  We 
have  no  right  to  complain,  and  we  do  not  complain 
of  any  policy  which  our  confederates  may  impose 
upon  their  own  citizens,  in  relation  to  slavery  with 
in  their  own  limits ;  nor  do  we  complain  of  the 
opinions  of  individuals  in  reference  to  it.  Massa 
chusetts  can  send  Abolitionists  here  if  she  chooses, 
and  she  makes  a  free  use  of  the  right.  What  we 
have  the  right  to  demand,  and  what  we  do  demand, 
is,  that  they  shall  not  impress  their  anti-slavery 
opinions  upon  the  legislation  of  this  Government. 
We  neither  desire  to  force  our  policy  upon  her,  nor 
will  we  submit  to  have  hers  forced  upon  us.  We 
offer  her  the  power  and  the  resources  of  the  repub 
lic  to  protect  her  property.  We  require  the  same 
for  ourselves.  What  object  of  material  wealth, 
animate  or  inanimate,  recognised  by  the  laws  of 
the  northern  States,  have  we  ever  failed  to  protect? 
None.  When  have  we  ever  attempted,  by  legisla 
tion  or  otherwise,  to  war  upon  her  domestic  policy? 
Never.  We  have  not  only  protected  her  wealtn, 
when  created  or  acquired,  but  we  have  done 
more — we  have  aided  her,  by  our  legislation,  to 
create  it.  By  our  navigation  laws  we  have  given 
her  the  monopoly  of  our  coasting1  trade.  By  dis 
criminating  tariffs  we  have  invigorated  and  stimu 
lated  the  arm  of  her  industry.  We  have  followed 
with  our  laws  her  ships  freighted  with  her  pro 
perty,  and  her  hardy  seamen  in  pursuit  of  wealth, 
over  the  trackless  ocean,  to  the  uttermost  parts  of 
the  world.  They  have  traversed  every  ocean; 
they  have  stood  upon  every  isle  of  the  sea  and  upon 
every  continent  of  the  earth,  securely  pursuing" 
the  acquisition  of  wealth,  under  that  emblem  of 
our  nationality — the  stars  and  stripes. 

We  have  withheld  no  part  of  the  price— neither  of 
blood  nor  treasure — of  winning  for  that  flag  a  name 
and  a  renown  which  makes  it  so  omnipotent  to 
shield  the  persons  and  property  of  American  citi 
zens.  The  sight  of  the  flag  of  Kngland  once  caused 
every  Anglo-Saxon  heart  on  this  continent  to  leap 
with  joy  and  gladness.  Then  the  power  which  it 
represented  was  used  to  shield  and  protect  them. 
Foolish  tyrants  made  it  the  emblem  oi  degradation. 
Loyalty  was  converted  into  hate — the  rest  in  his 
tory.  Profit  by  its  teachings.  I  demand  to-day 
that  protection  for  my  constituents  which  we  have 
never  withheld  from  you.  It  is  the  price  of  our  al 
legiance.  Let  us  understand  each  other.  We  hold 
it  to  be  the  duty  of  this  Government  to  protect  the 
persons  and  property  of  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  wherever  its  flag  floats  and  it  has  paramount 
jurisdiction.  And  as  a  just  corollary  from  this 
principle,  we  affirm  that,  as  the  Territories  of  the 
United  States  are  the  common  property  of  the  peo 
ple  of  the  several  States,  we  hare  the  right  to  enter 
them  with  our  flocks  and  our  herds,  with  our  men 
servants  and  our  maid  servants,  and  whatever  else 
the  laws  of  any  of  the  States  of  this  Union  declare 


to  be  property,  and  to  receive  full  and  ample  pro 
tection  from  our  common  Government  until  its 
authority  is  rightfully  superseded  by  a  State  Gov 
ernment.  This  is  equity,  Uiis  is  what  we  call 
equality;  and  it  is  what  you  would  call  equity 
and  equality  but  for  your  crusade  against  slavery. 

We  do  not  demand,  as  is  constantly  alleged  on 
this  floor  and  elsewhere,  that  you  shall  establish 
slavery  in  the  Territories.  I  have  endeavored  to 
show  that  you  have  no  power  to  do  so.  Slavery  is 
a  "  fixed  fact"  in  your  system.  We  ask  protec 
tion  ag-ainst  all  hostile  impediments  to  the  intro 
duction  and  peaceable  enjoyment  of  all  of  our  pro 
perty  in  the  Territories.  Whether  these  impedi 
ments  arise  from  foreign  laws  or  from  any  pretend 
ed  domestic  authority,  we  hold  it  to  be  your  duty 
to  remove  them.  Foreign  laws  can  only  exist  in 
acquired  territory  by  your  will,  express  or  implied. 
It  IB  a  fraud  on  our  rights  to  permit  them  to  re 
main  to  our  prejudice.  This  new  doctrine,  assert 
ing-  the  right  of  the  squatters  on  the  public  domain 
to  assume  sovereignty  over  it,  in  its  Territorial  state, 
was  concocted  only  for  a  Presidential  campaign. 
It  failed  of  its  purpose,  and  is  now  brought  into 
general  contempt.  It  is  believed  to  be  without  a 
defender  except  in  its  putative  father.  Congress 
alone  has  the  right  to  legislate  for  the  Territories 
until  they  shall  be  prepared  for  admission  into  the 
Union.  At  that  period  they  have  the  right  to  form 
such  government  as  they  may  prefer,  with  the  sole 
restriction  that  it  shall  be  republican.  When  they 
shall  be  admitted,  and  what  shall  be  their  bounda 
ries,  and  who  shall  participate  in  the  formation  of 
their  government,  are  proper  subjects  for  legisla 
tive  discretion.  Congress  has  no  power  over  the 
character  of  their  domestic  institutions.  Acting 
upon  these  principles,  at  the  last  session  of  Congress 
I  gave  my  support  to  the  bill  for  the  admission  of 
California  into  the  Union,  introduced  by  a  gentle 
man  from  Virginia,  (Mr.  PRESTON,)  who  now, 
with  so  much  honor  to  himself  and  advantage  to 
the  country,  presides  over  one  of  the  great  depart 
ments  of  this  Government.  That  bill  authorized 
the  people  of  California  to  form  their  own  institu 
tions  according  to  their  own  wishes.  Northern 
gentlemen  thrust  in  their  anti-slavery  proviso,  and 
the  bill  was  defeated.  Now  I  find  the  same  gen 
tlemen  over  zealous  for  the  admission  of  California. 
It  is  from  no  just  regard  to  sound  principles  that 
they  have  changed  their  action.  The  people  of 
California  have  inserted  the  proviso  for  them;  they 
have  thus  secured  their  end  and  therefore  change 
their  policy.  My  objections  to  the  California  bill 
of  the  last  session  were  numerous  and  grave,  but 
it  had  the  great  advantage  of  settling  the  whole 
question  without  any  violation  of  sound  principles. 
1  therefore  overcame  my  objections,  and  gave  it 
my  cordial  and  earnest  support.  The  bill  now  be 
fore  us  for  the  admission  of  California  has  not 
that  merit.  It  has  all  the  objections  that  existed 
against  the  former  bill,  with  still  graver  ones  su- 
peradded,  and  is  without  the  merit  of  closing  the 
question.  It  settles  nothing  but  the  addition  of 
another  non-slaveholding  State  to  the  Union,  thus 
giving  the  predominating  interest  additional  power 
to  settle  more  fully  the  territorial  questions  which 
it  leaves  unadjusted.  In  this  state  of  the  question 
it  cannot  receive  my  support. 

Those  who  claim  the  power  in  Congress  to  ex 
clude  slavery  from  the  Territories,  rely  rather  on 
majority  than  principle  to  support  it.  They  af 
firm,  with  singular  ignorance  of,  or  want  of  fidelity 
to,  the  facts,  that  Congress  has,  from  the  begin 
ning-  of  the  Government,  uniformly  claimed,  and 
repeatedly  exercised,  the  power  to  discourage  slave 


ry  and  to  exclude  it  from  the  Territories.  My  in 
vestigation  of  the  subject  has  satisfied  my  own  mind 
that  neither  position  is  sustained  by  a  single  prece 
dent.  I  exclude,  of  course,  legislation  prohibiting 
the  African  slave  trade;  and  I  hold  the  ordinance 
of  1787  not  to  be  within  the  principle  asserted.  For 
the  first  thirty  years  of  our  history  this  general 
duty  to  protect  this  great  interest  equally  with 
every  other,  was  universally  admitted  and  fairly 
performed  by  every  department  of  the  Government. 
The  act  of  1793  was  passed  to  secure  the  delivery 
up  of  fugitives  from  labor  escaping  to  the  non- 
slaveholding  States;  your  navigation  laws  author 
ized  their  transportation  on  the  nigh  seas.  The  Gov 
ernment  demanded,  and  repeatedly  received,  com 
pensation  for  the  owners  of  slaves  for  injuries  sus 
tained  in  these  lawful  voyages  by  the  interference 
of  foreign  governments.  It  not  only  protected  us 
upon  the  high  seas,  but  followed  us  to  foreign  lands, 
where  we  had  been  driven  by  the  dangers  of  the  sea, 
and  protected  slave  property  when  thus  cast  even 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  hostile  municipal  laws. 
The  slave .  property  of  our  people  was  protected 
against  the  incursions  of  Indians  by  your  military 

Eower  and  public  treaties.  The  citizens  of  Georgia 
ave  received  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars 
through  your  treaties  for  Indian  depredations  upon 
this  species  of  property.  That  clause  of  the  treaty 
of  Ghent  which  provided  compensation  for  proper 
ty  destroyed  or  taken  by  the  British  government, 
placed  slavery  precisely  upon  the  same  ground  with 
other  property;  and  a  New  England  man  [Mr. 
ADAMS]  ably  and  faithfully  maintained  the  rights 
of  the  slaveholder  under  it  at  the  Court  of  St. 
James.  Then  the  Government  was  administered 
according  to  the  Constitution,  and  not  according 
to  what  is  now  called  "the  spirit  of  the  age."  Those 
legislators  looked  for  political  powers  and  public 
duties  in  the  organic  law  which  political  commu 
nities  had  laid  down  for  their  guidance  and  gov 
ernment.  Humanity-mongers,  atheistical  social 
ists,  who  would  upturn  the  moral,  social,  and  po 
litical  foundations  of  society,  who  would  substitute 
the  folly  of  men  for  the  wisdom  of  God,  were  then 
justly  considered  as  the  enemies  of  the  human 
race,  and  as  deserving  the  contempt,  if  not  the 
execration,  of  all  mankind. 

Until  the  year  1820  your  territorial  legislation 
was  marked  by  the  same  general  spirit  of  fairness 
and  justice.  Notwithstanding  the  constant  asser 
tions  to  the  contrary  by  gentlemen  from  the  North, 
up  to  that  period  no  act  was  ever  passed  by  Con 
gress  maintaining  or  asserting  the  primary  consti 
tutional  power  to  prevent  any  citizen  of  the  United 
States  owning  slaves  from  removing  with  them  to 
our  territories,  and  there  receiving  legal  protection 
for  this  property.  Until  that  time  such  persons 
did  so  remove  into  all  the  territories  owned  or  ac 
quired  by  the  United  States,  except  the  Northwest 
Territory,  and  were  there  adequately  protected. 
The  action  of  Congress  in  reference  to  the  ordi 
nance  of  1787  does  not  contravene  this  principle. 
That  ordinance  was  passed  on  the  13th  of  July, 
1787,  before  the  adoption  of  our  present  Constitu 
tion.  It  purported  on  its  face  to  be  a  perpetual 
compact  between  the  State  of  Virginia,  the  people 
of  the  Territory,  and  the  then  Government  of  the 
United  States,  and  unalterable  except  by  the  con 
sent  of  all  the  parties.  When  Congress  met  for 
the  first  time  under  the  new  government,  on  the  4tb 
of  March,  1789,  it  found  the  government  thus  es 
tablished  by  virtue  of  this  ordinance  in  actual  oper 
ation  ;  and  on  the  7th  of  August,  1789,  it  passed  a 
law  making  the  offices  of  governor  and  secretary 
of  the  Territory  conform  to  the  Constitution  of  the 


new  government.  It  did  nothing  more.  It  made 
no  reference  to  the  sixth  and  last  section  of  the 
ordinance  which  inhibited  slavery.  The  division 
of  that  Territory  was  provided  for  in  the  ordinance; 
at  each  division,  the  whole  of  the  ordinance  was 
assigned  by  Congress  to  each  of  its  parts.  This 
is  the  whole  sum  and  substance  of  the  Free-Soil 
claim  to  legislative  precedents.  Congress  did  not 
assert  the  right  to  alter  a  solemn  -compact  entered 
into  with  the  former  government/but  gave  its  con 
sent  by  its  legislation  to  the  governments  estab 
lished  and  provided  for  in  the  compact.  If  the 
original  compact  was  void  for  want  of  power  in 
the  old  government  to  make  it,  as  Mr.  Madison 
supposed.  Congress  may  not  have  been  bound  to 
accept  it — it  certainly  had  no  power  to  alter  it. 
From  these  facts  and  principles  it  is  clear  that  the 
legislation  for  the  Northwest  Territory  does  not 
conflict  with  the  principle  which  I  assert,  and  does 
not  afford  precedents  for  the  hostile  legislation  of 
Congress  against  slavery  in  the  Territories.  That 
such  was  neither  the  principle  nor  the  policy  upon 
which  the  act  of  the  7th  of  August,  1789,  was  based, 
is  further  shown  by  the  subsequent  action  of  the 
same  Congress.  On  the  2d  of  April,  1790,  Con 
gress,  by  a  formal  act,  accepted  the  cession  made 
by  North  Carolina  of  her  western  lands  (now  the 
State  of  Tennessee)  with  this  clause  in  the  deed 
of  cession :  "  That  no  regulations  made  or  to  be 
made  by  Congress  shall  tend  to  emancipate  slaves" 
in  the  ceded  territory;  and  on  the  26th  of  May, 
1790,  passed  a  territorial  bill  for  the  government  of 
all  the  territory  claimed  by  the  United  States  south 
of  the  Ohio  river.  The  description  of  this  terri 
tory  included  all  the  lands  ceded  by  North  Caro 
lina,  but  it  included  a  great  deal  more.  Its  bound 
aries  were  left  indefinite,  because  there  were  con 
flicting  claims  to  all  the  rest  of  the  territory.  But 
this  act  put  the  whole  country  claimed  by  the 
United  States  south  of  the  Ohio  under  this  pro-sla 
very  clause  of  the  North  Carolina  deed.  The  whole 
action  of  the  first  Congress  in  relation  to  slavery  in 
the  Territories  of  the  United  States  seerns  to  have 
been  this :  It  acquiesced  in  a  government  for  the 
Northwest  Territory  based  upon  a  pre-existing 
anti-slavery  ordinance,  created  a  government  for 
the  country  ceded  by  North  Carolina  in  conform 
ity  with  the  pro  slavery  clause  in  her  deed,  and 
extended  this  pro- slavery  clause  to  all  the  rest 
of  the  territory  claimecl  by  the  United  States 
south  of  the  Ohio  river.  This  legislation  vindicates 
the  first  Congress  from  all  imputation  of  having 
established  the  precedent  claimed  by  the  friends 
of  legislative  exclusion.  The  next  territorial  act 
which  was  passed  was  that  of  the  7th  of  April, 
1798.  It  was  the  first  act  of  territorial  legislation 
which  had  to  rest  solely  upon  original,  primary, 
constitutional  power  over  the  subject.  It  estab 
lished  a  government  over  the  territory  included 
within  the  boundaries  of  a  line  drawn  due  east 
from  the  mouth  of  the  Yazoo  river  to  the  Chatta- 
hoochoe  river,  then  down  that  river  to  the  thirty- 
first  degree  of  north  latitude,  then  west  on  that 
line  to  the  Mississippi  river,  then  up  the  Mississippi 
to  the  beginning.  This  territory  was  within  the 
boundary  of  the  United  States  as  defined  by  the 
treaty  of  Paris,  and  was  not  within  the  boundary 
of  any  of  the  States.  The  charter  of  Georgia  lim 
ited  her  boundary  on  the  south  to  the  Altamaha 
river.  In  1763,  after  the  surrender  of  her  charter, 
her  limits  were  extended  by  the  crown  to  the  St. 
Mary's  river,  and  west  on  the  thirty-first  degree  of 
north  latitude  te  the  Mississippi.  In  1764,  on  the 
recommendation  of  the  board  of  trade,  her  boun 
dary  was  again  altered,  and  that  portion  of  terri 


tory  within  the  boundaries  which  I  have  described 
was  annexed  to  West  Florida,  and  thus  it  stood  at 
the  revolution  and  the  treaty  of  peace.  Therefore 
the  United  States  claimed  it  as  common  property, 
and,  in  1798,  passed  the  act  now  under  review  for 
its  government.  In  that  act  she  neither  claimed 
nor  exerted  any  power  to  prohibit  slavery  in  it. 
And  the  question  came  directly  before  Congress; 
the  ordinance  of  1787  in  terms  was  applied  to  this 
territory,  expressly  "excepting  and  excluding  the 
last  article  of  the  ordinance,"  which  is  the  article 
excluding  slavery  from  the  Northwest  Terrritory. 
This  is  a  precedent  directly  in  point,  and  is  against 
the  exercise  of  the  power  now  claimed.  In  1802, 
Georgia  ceded  her  western  lands,  she  protected 
slavery  in  her  grant,  and  the  Government  com 
plied  with  her  stipulations. 

In  1803  the  United  States  acquired  Louisiana 
from  France  by  purchase.  There  is  no  special 
reference  to  slavery  in  the  treaty;  it  was  protected 
only  under  the  general  term  of  property.  This 
acquisition  was  soon  after  the  treaty  divided  into 
two  Territories — the  Orleans  and  the  Louisiana 
Territories — over  both  of  which  governments  were 
established.  The  law  of  slavery  obtained  in  the 
whole  country  at  the  time  we  acquired  it.  Con 
gress  prohibited  the  foreign  and  domestic  slave 
trade  in  these  Territories,  but  gave  the  protection 
of  its  laws  to  slave  owner  s  emigrating  thither  with 
their  slaves.  Upon  the  admission  of  Louisiana  in 
to  the  Union,  a  new  government  was  established 
by  Congress  over  the  rest  of  the  country  under  the 
name  of  the  Missouri  territory.  This  act  also  at 
tempted  no  exclusion;  slaveholders  emigrated  to 
the  country  with  their  slaves,  and  were  protected 
by  their  government.  In  1819  Florida  was  ac 
quired  by  purchase;  its  laws  recognised  and  pro 
tected  slavery  at  the  time  of  the  acquisition.  The 
United  States  extended  the  same  recognition  and 
protection. 

1  have  thus  briefly  reviewed  the  whole  territo 
rial  legislation  of  Congress  from  the  beginning 
of  the  Government  until  1320,  and  it  sustains 
my  proposition,  that  within  that  period  there  was 
no  precedent  where  Congress  had  exercised,  or  at 
tempted  to  exercise,  any  primary  constitutional 
power  to  prevent  slaveholders  from  emigrating 
with  their  slave  property  to  any  portion  of  the 
public  lands;  and  that  it  had  extended  the  protec 
tion  of  its  laws  and  its  arms  over  such  persons,  in 
all  cases  except  in  the  Northwest  Territory,  where 
it  was  fettered  and  restrained  by  an  organic  law 
established  before  the  formation  of  our  present 
Constitution.  In  1820  this  power  of  Congress  over 
the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  was,  for  the 
first  time,  distinctly  and  broadly  asserted.  It  was 
sternly  resisted  by  the  South;  the  struggle  con 
vulsed  the  republc;  it  resulted  in  what  is  called  a 
compromise,  by  which  Missouri  was  finally  ad 
mitted  into  the  Union  without  any  restriction 
against  slavery  in  her  constitution — and  slavery 
was  prohibited  in  all  that  part  of  the  territory  ac 
quired  from  France,  not  within  the  State  of  Mis 
souri,  lying  above  36°  30'  north  latitude.  The 
South  made  this  concession  to  union  and  harmony. 
It  scarcely  remains  to  be  seen  whether  this  shall  be 
an  exception  to  the  general  rule,  that  concessions 
to  unjust  demands  are  fruitful  of  nothing  but  future 
aggression.  We  are  now  daily  threatened  with 
every  form  of  extermination  if  we  do  not  tamely 
acquiesce  in  whatever  legislation  the  majority  may 
choose  to  impose  upon  us  in  relation  to  this  sub 
ject.  The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr. 
MANN)  threatens  us  with  three  millions  of  hostages 
(he  means  substitutes)  in  the  persons  of  our  slaves, 


6 


to  enforce  Free-Soil  insolence.  The  gentleman 
from  Illinois  (Mr.  BISSELL)  threatens  us  with  twice, 
thrice,  yea,  four  times  nine  regiments  ready  to 
immolate  themselves  in  this  cause  under  pretext  of 
supporting  the  Union.  These  are  brave  words, 
even  for  a  militia  colonel;  Illinois  can  march  down 
the  regiments,  she  has  sufficient  numbers — how 
many  of  them  she  will  march  back  again  will  de 
pend  upon  ourselves.  Gentlemen  may  spare  their 
threats:  he  who  counts  the  danger  of  defending  his 
own  honor  is  already  degraded;  the  people  who 
count  the  cost  of  maintaining  their  political  rights 
are  ready  for  slavery.  The  sentiment  of  every 
true  man  at  the  South  will  be,  We  took  the  Union 
and  the  Constitution  together — we  will  have  both 
or  we  will  have  neither.  This  cry  of  the  Union  is 
the  masked  battery  from  behind  which  the  Consti 
tution  and  the  rights  of  the  South  are  to  be  assailed. 
Let  the  South  mark  the  man  who  is  for  the  Union 
at  every  hazard  and  to  the  last  extremity;  when 
the  day  of  her  peril  comes  he  will  be  the  imitator  of 
that  historical  character  to  whom  the  gentleman 
from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  MCLANAHAN)  referred, 
"the  base  Judean  who,  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver, 
threw  away  a  pearl  richer  than  all  his  tribe." 

The  South  acquiesced,  sir,  in  this  compromise. 
Texas  being  the  next  acquisition  after  its  adoption, 
it  was  applied  to  that  country.  Our  claims  to 
Oregon  being  settled,  and  all  of  that  country  lying 
above  the  compromise  line,  the  North  applied  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  to  the  whole  of  that  country, 
and  the  South  acquiesced  in  it.  Mr.  Polk  placed 
his  approval  of  the  bill  upon  that  express  ground. 
The  North,  after  applying  the  compromise  line  to 
Texas,  now  seeks  to  get  rid  of  it  by  restricting  the 
just  territorial  rights  and  limits  of  Texas.  In  this 
we  think  we  have  just  cause  of  complaint;  but  the 
gentleman  from  Ohio  (Mr.  CAMPBELL)  manufac 
tures  out  of  this  transaction  two  of  the  main  counts 
in  his  indictment  against  the  South.  That  gentle 
man  congratulates  nimself  upon  the  fact  that  Ohio 
has  schoolhouses  and  schoolmasters  at  home.  From 
the  singularly  inaccurate  account  which  he  gave  of 
that  very  recent  and  marked  event  in  our  public 
history,  I  could  not  resist  the  conclusion  that  Ohio 
needed  her  schoolmasters.  That  gentleman  charges 
the  annexation  of  Texas  upon  the  South,  and 
through  that  policy,  he  says,  northern  labor  was 
stricken  down  by  the  overthrow  of  the  tariff  of 
1842  by  the  votes  of  the  Senators  from  Texas. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL  here  stated  that  he  said  it  was 
southern  policy. 

Mr.  TOOMBS  continued.  Neither  allegation 
is  supported  by  the  facts.  When  Mr.  Tyler  at 
tempted  to  annex  Texas  by  treaty,  it  was  strongly 
urged  upon  the  South  on  sectional  grounds  by  dis 
tinguished  gentlemen  connected  with  his  govern 
ment.  On  its  presentation  to  the  Senate  it  was  de 
feated  by  a  large  majority,  embracing  both  north 
ern  and  southern  men.  It  was  then  taken  up  by 
the  Democratic  party  as  a  party  measure;  it  was 
declared  by  them  to  be  a  great  American  question. 
Mr.  Van  Buren  was  overthrown  at  Baltimore  for 
opposing  it;  Mr.  Polk  was  nominated  for  the  Pres 
idency  mainly  for  his  support  of  it.  Upon  every 
Democratic  flag  throughout  the  Republic. — North, 
South,  East,  and  West — were  inscr  ibed  "Polk, 
Dallas,  Texas,  arid  Oregon."  The  Democratic 
party  triumphed  ;  the  Whig  party  of  the  South 
combat  ted  it  with  a  fidelity  equal  to  that  of  the 
North  ;  both  divisions  of  the  party  were  overthrown 
in  their  respective  sections,  and  a  majority  of  the 
people  at  the  North  as  well  as  the  South  sanctioned 
the  annexation  of  Texas.  After  this  decisive  pub- 
Ik  verdict  in  its  favor,  several  Whigs  from  the 


South  voted  for  it ;  it  had  become  a  mere  question 
of  time  and  terms  of  annexation.  Their  constitu 
ents  were  deeply  interested  in  the  terms.  I  then 
approved  and  now  approve  their  course.  The  tariff 
of  1842  fell  by  the  same  means ;  hostility  to  it  was 
inscribed  upon  those  same  banners ;  it  became  a 
cardinal  principle  of  Democratic  faith  ;  it  was  pro 
mulgated  by  the  same  party  convention,  in  which 
the  whole  North  was  not  only  represented,  but  in 
which  it  had  an  overwhelming  majority.  If  the  act 
of  1846  is  undermining  northern  industry,  it  is  no 
fault  of  ours.  I  and  every  other  southern  Whig, 
except  my  friend  from  Alabama,  (Mr.  BILLIARD,) 
voted  against  it.  I  have  never  yet  given  a  sectional 
vote  in  these  halls.  I  never  will.  Whenever  the 
state  of  public  opinion  in  my  own  section  shall  de 
ter  me,  or  the  injustice  of  the  other  shall  incapa 
citate  me  from  supporting  the  true  interests  of  the 
whole  nation  and  the  just  demands  of  every  part  of 
the  Republic,  I  will  then  surrender  a  trust  which  I 
can  no  longer  hold  with  honor.  Neither  are  the 
consequences  of  the  act  of  1846  justly  chargeable  to 
Texas.  Where  was  the  Empire  State  wnen  that 
battle  was  fought  and  lost?  Whore  was  New 
Hampshire,  Maine,  Michigan,  Indiana,  Illinois? 
Yes,  sir,  where  was  Ohio?  Your  journals  will  show 
they  were  in  the  ranks  of  those  whom  the  gentleman 
now  chooses  to  consider  the  enemies  ot  northern 
labor.  If  the  overthrow  of  the  tariff  of  1842  has 
paralyzed  the  arm  of  northern  labor,  the  suicidal 
blow  was  stricken  by  its  own  hands. 

To  return  from  this  digression:  Our  next  and  last 
acquisition  was  California  and  New  Mexico.  They 
are  the  fruits  of  successful  war.  We  have  borne 
our  full  share  of  its  burdens — we  demand  an  equal 
participation  in  its  benefits.  The  rights  of  the  South 
are  consecrated  by  the  blood  of  her  children.  The 
sword  is  the  title  by  which  the  nation  acquired  the 
country.  The  thought  is  suggestive;  wise  men  will 
ponder  upon  it — brave  men  will  act  upon  it.  I  fore 
saw  the  dangers  of  this  question;  I  warned  the 
country  of  these  dangers.  From  the  day  that  the 
first  gun  was  fired  upon  the  Rio  Grande,  until  the 
act  was  consummated  by  all  the  Departments  of 
this  Government,  I  resisted  all  acquisitions  of  terri 
tory.  My  honorable  colleague  before  me  [Mr. 
STEPHENS]  and  myself,  standing  upon  the  ground 
taken  by  the  republican  party  in  1796  against  Jay's 
treaty,  voted  against  appropriating  the  money  to 
carry  out  the  treaty  of  Gaudalupe  Hidalgo.  We 
had  no  support  from  the  South,  and  but  half  a  dozen 
votes  from  the  North.  I  saw  no  good  prospect  of 
adjusting  fairly  the  question  which  the  acquisition 
would  present.  I  therefore  resisted  a  policy  which 
threatened  the  ruin  of  the  South  or  the  subversion 
of  the  Government.  And  to-day,  men  of  the  North, 
these  are  the  alternatives  you  present  us.  We  de 
mand  an  equal  participation  in  the  whole  country 
acquired,  or  a  division  of  it  between  the  North  and 
the  South.  For  very  obvious  reasons,  founded  upon 
natural  causes,  we  are  less  solicitous  about  the  ex 
tent  of  thfi  privilege  than  the  recognition  of  the 
principle.  The  first  would  most  probably  be  a  boon 
without  a  benefit;  the  last  is  the  vital  spark  of  our 
whole  political  system,  whose  extinguishment  is 
death.  The  North  now  disavows  the  principle  of  divi 
sion.  After  getting  more  than  two-thirds  of  Lou 
isiana,  a  portion  of  Texas,  and  all  of  Or  -g-on  under 
the  Missouri  compromise  line  of  division,  she  now 
repudiates  it.  I  am  content.  Let  us  stand  on 
original  constitutional  principles.  But  let  the 
North  remember,  that  when  she  repudiates  the 
compromise  line,  she  is  entitled  to  take  nothing  by 
the  legislative  precedents  based  upon  that  com 
promise.  With  this  reservation  she  is  not  only 


without  a  precedent,  as  I  have  already  shown,  for 
our  exclusion  from  any  part  of  the  common  terri 
tories  of  the  Union,  but  such  an  act  would  be 
against  all  well-defined  precedents  from  the  begin 
ning1  of  the  Government  to  this  day.  I  have  pre 
sented  you  the  case  of  the  South  as  strongly  as  I 
ani  able  to  do  it,  as  fully  as  the  time  your  rules 
allow  me  will  permit.  It  is  fortified  by  principle, 
by  authority,  and  by  the  immutable  principles  of 
eternal  justice.  It  is  not  only  supported  by  the 
principles  of  our  own  Government;  out  by  the  fun 
damental  principles  of  every  good  government. 
All  just  government  is  derived  from  the  consent  of 
the  governed,  and  all  power  exercised  without  that 
consent  is  usurpation.  The  universal  limitation 
upon  all  delegated  power,  whether  express  or 
implied,  is,  that  it  shall  be  rightfully  and  justly 
used  for  the  common  benefit  of  those  who  delegate 
it.  No  honest,  intelligent  man  can  believe,  with 
the  Constitution  and  its  history  before  him,  that  the 
slaveholding  States  intended  to  confer  upon  Con 
gress  the  power  to  legislate  against  their  slave 
property  in  the  Territories,  or  any  where  else. 
The  day  that  you  doit,  you  plant  the  seeds  of  dis 
solution  in  your  political  system.  Then  the  House 
will  be  divided  against  itself,  and  it  must  fall.  The 
folly  of  some,  the  timidity  of  others,  and,  per 
chance,  the  treachery  of  others  in  the  South,  may 
roll  back  for  a  season  the  wave  that  shall  over 
whelm  and  destroy  it;  but  it  will  be  the  reflux  of 
the  advancing,  not  the  receding  tide;  it  shall  gather 
strength  from  every  breaker,  and  will  finally  ac 
complish  its  mission.  The  first  act  of  legislative 
hostility  to  slavery  is  the  proper  point  for  southern 
resistance.  Those  in  advance  may  fall — it  is  the 
common  history  of  revolutions — but  the  cause  will 
not  fall  with  them;  no  human  power  can  avert  the 
result,  it  will  triumph.  Though  hostile  interfer 
ence  is  the  point  of  resistance,  non-interference  is 
not  the  measure  of  our  rights.  We  are  entitled 
to  non-interference  from  alien  and  foreign  gov 
ernments.  England  owes  us  that  much;  France 
owes  us  that  much;  Russia  owes  us  non-inter 
vention.  You  owe  us  more.  You  owe  us  pro 
tection.  Withhold  it,  and  you  make  us  aliens 
in  our  own  Government.  Our  hostility  to  it, 
then,  becomes  a  necessity — a  necessity  justified 
by  our  honor,  our  interests,  and  our  common 
safety.  These  are  stronger  than  all  human  gov 
ernment.  Your  hostility  is  aggravated  by  the 
causes  which  you  allege  in  its  defence.  We  had 
our  institutions  when  you  sought  our  alliance.  We 
were  content  with  them  then,  and  we  are  content 


with  them  now.  We  have  not  sougi. 
them  upon  you,  nor  to  interfere  with  yotthrws* 
believe  what  you  say,  that  yours  are  so  rif  you 
best  to  promote  the  happiness  and  good  ^the 
ment  of  society,  why  do  you  fear  our  equal "»' 
petition  with  you  in  the  Territories  ?  We  only V 
that  our  common  government  shall  protect  \ 
both  equally,  until  the  Territories  shall  be  ready  to 
be  admitted,  as  States,  into  the  Union,  then  to 
leave  their  citizens  free  to  adopt  any  domestic 
policy  in  reference  to  this  subject,  which,  in  their 
judgment,  may  best  promote  their  interest  and 
their  happiness.  The  demand  is  just.  Grant  it, 
and  you  place  your  prosperity  and  ours  upon  a 
solid  foundation ;  you  perpetuate  the  Union,  so 
necessary  to  your  prosperity;  you  solve  the  true 
problem  of  Republican  Government;  you  vindi 
cate  the  power  of  constitutional  guarantees  to  pro 
tect  political  rights  against  the  will  of  majorities.  I 
can  see  no  reasonable  prospectthat  you  will  grant  it. 
The  fact  cannot  longer  be  concealed,  the  declara 
tion  of  members  here  proves  it,  the  action  of  this 
House  is  daily  demonstrating  it,  that  we  are  in 
the  midst  of  a  legislative  revolution,  the  object  of 
which  is  to  trample  under  foot  the  Constitution 
and  the  laws,  and  to  make  the  will  of  the  majority 
the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  In  this  emergency 
our  duty  is  clear;  it  is  to  stand  by  the  Constitution 
and  laws,  to  observe  in  good  faith  all  of  its  require 
ments,  until  the  wrong  is  consummated,  until  the 
act  of  exclusion  is  put  upon  the  statute  book;  it 
will  then  be  demonstrated  that  the  Constitution  is 
powerless  for  our  protection;  it  will  then  be  not 
»only  the  right  but  the  duty  of  the  slaveholding 
States  to  resume  the  powers  which  they  have  con 
ferred  upon  this  Government,  and  to  seek  new 
safeguards  for  their  future  security.  It  will  then 
become  our  right  to  prevent  the  application  of  the 
resources  of  the  Republic  to  the  maintenance  of  the 
wrongful  act. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  MANN) 
says  the  volcano  is  raging  beneath  our  feet,  that 
thunders  are  rolling  over  our  heads,  and  that  thick 
clouds  are  surrounding  us.  'If  it  be  true,  let  the 
aggressor  tremble.  We  who  are  contending  for  a 
principle  essential  to  our  interest,  our  safety,  and 
our  political  equality  in  this  Union,  can  suffer  no 
greater  calamity  than  its  loss.  This  is  an  appeal 
from  the  argument  to  our  fears.  I  answer  that  ap 
peal  in  the  patriotic  language  of  a  distinguished 
Georgian,  who  yet  lives  to  arouse  the  hearts  of  his 
countrymen  to  resistance  to  wrong :  When  the  ar 
gument  is  exhausted  we  will  stand  by  our  arms. 


